The Problem With Sustainable Design in India — And What Metabolic Design Does Differently.

Listen to this article

8 min read • Automated Audio Edition

Walk through any new commercial development in Mumbai, Bengaluru, or Hyderabad and you will find the same thing: a glass tower with a LEED plaque at the entrance, a rooftop solar array visible from the street, and interiors that require full air-conditioning eighteen hours a day because the glazing that earns points in one category destroys thermal performance in another. This is not sustainable design. It is sustainable signalling — the architectural equivalent of a fast-fashion brand releasing a recycled-polyester capsule collection while its core supply chain remains unchanged. We say this not to be cynical. The architects and developers behind these buildings often have genuine intentions. The problem is structural: the frameworks within which sustainability is currently measured and rewarded in India are not fit for purpose. They measure the wrong things, incentivise surface interventions, and are almost entirely blind to the ecological, climatic, and cultural specificity of the subcontinent. Metabolic design — the approach SAM practices — is our attempt to build a different framework. One that starts from first principles rather than borrowed checklists. One that treats Indian climate, Indian materials, and Indian spatial intelligence not as constraints to be overcome, but as the most sophisticated sustainability toolkit available.

Green Ratings and the Theatre of Sustainability

India now has over 8,000 IGBC-registered green projects. It is the second-largest green building market in the world by registered space. And yet the built environment remains one of the country’s largest contributors to energy consumption and carbon emissions. How is this possible?The answer lies in what rating systems actually measure. LEED, IGBC, and GRIHA are points-based frameworks. They reward specific interventions — solar panels, rainwater harvesting tanks, LED lighting, bicycle parking — with credit scores that accumulate toward a certification level. The problem is that these interventions are evaluated in isolation. A building can score maximum points for water efficiency while being sited in a way that destroys the local water table. It can earn energy credits through mechanical systems while the building envelope itself — poorly oriented, over-glazed, thermally inadequate — requires those systems to run continuously.The rating system measures the medicine. It does not measure whether the patient is healthy. And in India, the patient — the building, the site, the ecology — is frequently worse off after treatment than before.There is also an economic distortion at work. Green certification costs money to pursue and adds value to the finished asset. This means the incentive to certify is primarily financial, not ecological. Developers pursue ratings that maximise asset value, not ratings that maximise ecological performance. The result is a market that is very good at producing certifiably green buildings that are not particularly sustainable.

Frameworks Designed for the Wrong Climate

LEED was developed in the United States. Its climate assumptions, its benchmarks, its point allocations — all calibrated to the energy and water conditions of North American cities. When it was introduced to India, it was adapted, but the underlying logic was not fundamentally rewritten. This matters because India is not the United States.

Enjoying the Archticle?

Subscribe to our newsletter to unlock full access to Studio Aditya Mandlik’s architectural theories, project deep-dives, and research manifestos.

Thank you. Access unlocked.

It is not even a single climate — it is six distinct climate zones ranging from cold-arid Ladakh to hot-humid Kerala, with the densely populated Deccan plateau and the monsoon-driven western coast sitting somewhere between extremes that no single framework can adequately address. What imported frameworks assume as baseline — heating as the primary energy burden, glazing as a thermal asset for solar gain, mechanical systems as necessary infrastructure — is almost exactly wrong for most of India. Here, cooling is the primary burden. Glazing is a liability. Mass, shading, and ventilation are the primary tools. And the monsoon is not a nuisance to be drained away — it is a resource to be stored, directed, and used. GRIHA — the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment — was developed specifically for Indian conditions and is significantly more contextually intelligent. But even GRIHA operates within a compliance logic: it asks whether a building meets a threshold, not whether it is genuinely integrated into its ecological context. It is a better checklist. It is still a checklist.

What India Already Knows

Before any of these frameworks existed, India had already solved most of the problems they are attempting to address — and solved them more elegantly, more durably, and more site-specifically than any international certification system has managed. The jaali — the perforated stone or brick screen that filters light and air through Mughal and Rajput architecture — is a passive cooling device of extraordinary sophistication. It reduces direct solar gain while maintaining ventilation and visual connection to the outside. No mechanical system required. No imported technology. Just geometry and material intelligence applied to a specific climatic problem. The vav — the stepwell of Gujarat — descends into the earth to access cool groundwater, creating a microclimate that makes the structure habitable through the hottest months without any energy input whatsoever. The stepwell is simultaneously infrastructure, architecture, ecology, and civic space. The courtyard typology of the haveli, the wind-catchers of Hyderabad, the compressed rammed-earth walls of the Deccan, the thatched steep-pitched roofs of the coastal vernacular — every one of these is a metabolic solution. A solution that works with climate rather than against it, that uses local materials whose production and transport carry minimal embedded energy, and that improves with age rather than deteriorating from the moment of completion. The tragedy is not that we stopped building this way. The tragedy is that we stopped understanding why we built this way — and then imported a framework designed to simulate, very expensively and very mechanically, what our own traditions had already achieved for free.

What Metabolic Design Does Differently

Metabolic design, as SAM practices it, begins with a refusal: the refusal to treat sustainability as a set of interventions to be added to an otherwise conventional building. Instead, we treat the building as a participant in a series of ongoing exchanges — with the sun, the wind, the water table, the soil, the urban heat island, the non-human life of the site. These exchanges are not optional features. They are the design. The building’s orientation, its mass, its surface-to-volume ratio, its material palette, its relationship to vegetation and water — all of these are ecological decisions before they are aesthetic ones. The difference between sustainable design as currently practised in India and metabolic design is not a difference of degree. It is a difference of paradigm. One asks: does this building meet the standard? The other asks: does this building belong here?

Five Principles of Metabolic Design

Site Before Programme. Read the site before writing the brief. Orientation, prevailing winds, groundwater depth, existing vegetation, solar trajectory, and urban context all condition what the building should be before the client’s programme is even considered. The site is not a canvas — it is a co-author.

Passive Before Active. Every climatic challenge should be addressed first through building form, orientation, mass, and material before any mechanical system is introduced. A wall that absorbs heat during the day and releases it at night is categorically preferable to an air conditioner — even a highly efficient one powered by solar energy.

Local Material Chains. Materials should be sourced as close to the site as possible, not only to reduce embodied energy but because local materials carry the geological and climatic intelligence of their place. Compressed laterite from the Deccan performs differently in a Deccan climate than imported granite — and that difference is not incidental, it is structural.

Design for Time. A metabolic building improves with age. Surfaces develop patina. Planted elements mature into genuine ecology. Material joints widen and tighten with seasonal cycles. Design should anticipate and welcome this — not specify surfaces that require constant maintenance to remain as they appeared on completion day.

Include the Non-Human. A building that provides no habitat for non-human life — no ledge, no crevice, no planted threshold, no water source — is ecologically inert at best, destructive at worst. Metabolic design asks what the building offers to the urban ecology beyond the human programme it houses.

What This Actually Looks Like

Metabolic design does not look the same everywhere, and it should not. A metabolic house in coastal Kerala looks radically different from a metabolic office in central Mumbai — because the climates are different, the materials are different, the ecological pressures are different, and the cultural patterns of inhabitation are different. What it shares, across all contexts, is a quality of inevitability. A metabolic building feels as if it could not have been built anywhere else, or from any other materials, or by any other logic. It does not announce its sustainability. It is not decked with solar panels as decoration or wrapped in living walls as a marketing strategy. It is simply, deeply, structurally appropriate to its place. At SAM, every project begins with a site reading that takes as long as it takes. Not a survey in the technical sense — though that happens too — but a slower process of understanding what the site already does: how it manages water, how it creates shade, what lives there, how it has been used and misused. This reading is the first design act. Everything that follows is, in a sense, a response. The result is not always the building the client imagined when they first walked in. It is usually something better — more specific, more durable, more embedded in its place. And very often, it performs better thermally, hydrologically, and ecologically than any number of LEED-platinum buildings built on the same street.

Without a plaque at the entrance to prove it.